I'm restricting myself the use of prebuilt-in functions for training purposes. I have recoded length as count and it works.
I have a search funtion that simply returns a value at index in a list when given an index and a list. It works completly fine. It throws an error when the index is too large.
search [] _ = error "index too large"
search (a:_) 0 = a
search (_:a) b = search a (b - 1)
Now, I want a safeSearch function that return Nothing if the index is too large of if the list is empty. So I've simply done this.
safeSearch :: [a] -> Int -> Maybe a
safeSearch a b
| b < 0 || b >= count a = Nothing
| otherwise = Just (search a b)
And it works! ... as long as you don't try it on an empty list. Even with an index too large for the list length.
main = print(safeSearch [] 5)
This crashes and I really can't find any way around it.
Even though I don't think my second line is usefull (because if the list is empty, its count is 0 so we drop in the first guard and it should return Nothing?) its not working. Removing it does not solve the problem.
Here's the compile-time error.
main.hs:91:8: error:
* Ambiguous type variable `a0' arising from a use of `print'
prevents the constraint `(Show a0)' from being solved.
Probable fix: use a type annotation to specify what `a0' should be.
These potential instances exist:
instance Show Ordering -- Defined in `GHC.Show'
instance Show Integer -- Defined in `GHC.Show'
instance Show a => Show (Maybe a) -- Defined in `GHC.Show'
...plus 22 others
...plus 13 instances involving out-of-scope types
(use -fprint-potential-instances to see them all)
* In the expression: print (safeSearch [] 5)
In an equation for `main': main = print (safeSearch [] 5)
|
91 | main = print(safeSearch [] 5)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
exit status 1
Any idea? Something I'm missing or even completly going wrong? A concept I need to understand deeper?
The problem is a compile error. That means it isn't actually running your code and hitting your error "index too large" call; the compiler is rejecting your code before it can even try to run it. So you're looking in the wrong place if you're trying to change the code to avoid that.
What's actually happening is that safeSearch [] 5 is returning a value of type Maybe a, where a is the type of the elements in the list. But you didn't include any elements in the list, so there is nothing at all to decide what that type a is.
Your function safeSearch can work for any type, so that's actually fine. But you also try to print the Maybe a value. Using print requires a Show instance, and the instance for Maybe a requires there to also be a Show instance for a. Because there is nothing saying what type a is, the compiler has no way of finding the appropriate Show instance for it, so it has to abort compilation with an error.
The most straightforward way to solve it is to add a type annotation (either of the list, or the Maybe a value resulting from safeSearch). Something like this:
main = print (safeSearch ([] :: [Int]) 5)
(This is what the error message is talking about when it says an ambiguous type variable is preventing a Show constraint from being solved, and that the probable fix is to add a type annotation)
Note that this sort of issue is rarely a problem in "real" code. Normally if you have a list processed into another structure with a related type, you will have other code that does something with the elements or the result, or that produced the list (which isn't always empty). You wouldn't normally write a program that does nothing but process an always-empty list and print the result, except for these kinds of quick tests. So normally, when there is that other code as well, there will be enough context for the compiler to deduce the type of your empty list, and the extra type annotations will not be needed. So this kind of extra type annotation is not usually considered a serious burden that needs to be avoided, because they are hardly ever needed in "real" code. You just code as you want, and on the occassion that a compile error makes your realise you need an annotation you simply add it and move on.
If you do this kind of quick check in GHCi rather than writing a full program with a main function, then you also would not have needed the extra type annotation. This is because GHCi has the ExtendedDefaultRules language extension turned on by default. The "default rules" are conditions when GHC will choose a type for you instead of throwing an "ambiguous type" error. The normal default rules are pretty strict, and really only designed for defaulting numeric constraints (like Num a or Real a, etc). They do not apply to your original example. The "extended default rules" apply more often to avoid needing lots of type signatures in the interactive interpreter (since there you enter one line at a time, instead of the compiler being able to see the full module to infer types from usage). In this case entering print (safeSearch [] 5) at the interpreter prompt will work because it defaults the returned type to Maybe (), and it just so happens that printing Nothing :: Maybe () produces the same output as it would if it had correctly guessed the type you actually meant.
But in almost any real program, defaulting a type variable to () will be a stupid thing to do that makes things work less, so I do not recommend getting into the habit of enabling ExtendedDefaultRules in an actual module. Just add the type annotation, or do quick checks in the interpreter instead of in a module.
What you've written works great for any real-world use case. It only fails when someone writes print (safeSearch [] x) - a literal empty list, with no context to tell what result type is expected. It works fine if they pass in a nonempty list, or a list expression that happens to evaluate to an empty list, or if they use the result in a way that lets type inference figure out what was intended.
Further, there is really no way to write the function so that it works when passed a contextless empty list. The burden to make the types clear is necessarily placed on call sites, not the definition. The comments on your question have already shown how to do this; you only have to be that explicit when you're calling your function in a way that's obviously useless.
Related
Is it possible to instruct GHC compiler to require that a specific value in code has invalid type, without ever using this value?
A contrived example is:
data Box a = Num a => Box a
goodBoxSample :: Box Int
goodBoxSample = Box 1
-- below definition and binding are expected to fail compilation
badBoxSample :: Box String
badBoxSample = Box "foo"
Is there a way to inform the compiler that badBoxSample is expected to fail (e.g. with some pragma, rather than commenting it out as a known bad sample), so that the code compiles only if badBoxSample fails to type-check?
The motivation here is the same as for writing a test (in some other language) with the code that is required to throw exception for the test case to pass.
Not possible. You're basically asking for a way to prove that there's no instance Num String, but Haskell operates under the open-world assumption, which means that someone could always declare such an instance.
Somebody posted a very helpful answer here, but before I managed to accept it was removed... Thank you anyway, and here it is for the reference:
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/generic-lens-2.0.0.0/docs/Data-Generics-Product-Fields.html
In short, the goal of testing failing types can be achieved with doctest, in the way the linked library does it.
I have many files that must be processed automatically. Each file holds the response of one student to an exercise which asks the student to give definitions for some functions given a type for each function.
My idea is to have an Haskell script that loads each student file, and verifies if each function has the expected type.
A constraint is that the student files are not defined as modules.
How can I do this?
My best alternative so far is to spawn a GHCi process that will read stdin from a "test file" with GHCi commands, for example:
:load student1.hs
:t g
... and so on ...
then parse the returned output from GHCi to find the types of the functions in the student file.
Is there another clean way to load an arbitrary Haskell file and introspect its code?
Thanks
Haskell does not save type information at runtime. In Haskell, types are used for pre-runtime type checking at the static analysis phase and are later erased. You can read more about Haskell's type system here.
Is there a reason you want to know the type of a function at runtime? maybe we can help with the problem itself :)
Edit based on your 2nd edit:
I don't have a good solution for you, but here is one idea that might work:
Run a script that for each student module will:
Take the name of the module and produce a file Test.hs:
module Test where
import [module-name]
test :: a -> b -> [(b,a)]
test = g
run ghc -fno-code Test.hs
check the output does not contain type errors
write results into a log file
I think if you have a dynamically determined number of .hs files, which you need to load, parse and introspect, you could/should use the GHC API instead.
See for example:
Using GHC API to compile Haskell sources to CORE and CORE to binary
https://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2009-April/060705.html
These might not be something you can use directly — and I haven't done anything like this myself so far either — but these should get you started.
See also:
https://wiki.haskell.org/GHC/As_a_library
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/hint
The closest Haskell feature to that is Data.Typeable.typeOf. Here's a GHCi session:
> import Data.Typeable
> typeOf (undefined :: Int -> Char)
Int -> Char
> typeOf (undefined :: Int -> [Char])
Int -> [Char]
> typeOf (undefined :: Int -> Maybe [Char])
Int -> Maybe [Char]
> :t typeOf
typeOf :: Typeable a => a -> TypeRep
Under the hood, the Typeable a constraint forces Haskell to retain some type tags until runtime, so that they can be retrieved by typeOf. Normally, no such tags exist at runtime. The TypeRep type above is the type for such tags.
That being said, having such information is almost never needed in Haskell. If you are using typeOf to implement something, you are likely doing it wrong.
If you are using that to defer type checks to run time, when they could have been performed at compile time, e.g. using a Dynamic-like type for everything, then you are definitely doing it wrong.
If the function is supposed to be exported with a specific name, I think probably the easiest way would be to just write a test script that calls the functions and checks they return the right results. If the test script doesn't compile, the student's submission is incorrect.
The alternative is to use either the GHC API (kinda hard), or play with Template Haskell (simpler, but still not that simple).
Yet another possibility is to load the student's code into GHCi and use the :browse command to dump out everything that's exported. You can then grep for the term you're interested in. That should be quite easy to automate.
There's a catch, however: foo :: x -> x and foo :: a -> a are the same type, even though textually they don't match at all. You might contemplate trying to normalise the variable names, but it's worse: foo :: Int -> Int and foo :: Num x => x -> x don't look remotely the same, yet one type is an instance of the other.
...which I guess means I'm saying that my answer is bad? :-(
I'm trying to make a Haskell datatype a bit like a python dictionary, a ruby hash or a javascript object, in which a string is linked to a value, like so:
data Entry t = Entry String t
type Dictionary t = [Entry t]
The above code works fine. However, I would like a slightly nicer constructor, so I tried defining it like this:
data Entry t = String ~> t
This failed. I tried this:
data Entry t = [Char] ~> t
Again, it failed. I know that ~ has special meaning in Haskell, and GHCi still permits the operator ~>, but I still tried one other way:
data Entry t = [Char] & t
And yet another failure due to parse error. I find this confusing because, for some inexplicable reason, this works:
data Entry t = String :> t
Does this mean that there are certain rules for what characters may occur in infix type constructors, or is it a cast of misinterpretation. I'm not a newbie in Haskell, and I'm aware that it would be more idiomatic to use the first constructor, but this one's stumping me, and it seems to be an important part of Haskell that I'm missing.
Any operator that starts with a colon : is a type constructor or a data constructor, with the exception of (->). If you want the tilde, you could use :~>, but you're not going to get away with using something that doesn't start with a colon. Source
I am wondering if it is possible to keep assigned values in ghci when a module is reloaded?
For example i assign a value in ghci:
ghci> let x = 1
or
ghci> x <- getLine
After entering :r to reload an existing module x is not in scope anymore. Is it generally possible to keep the assignment available, like for example in the Python interpreter? (this is really convenient...)
Even tho that actually each line in ghci represents a function that is (monadically) bound to the next one I am still wondering if maintaining that state is possible.
I'm not aware of any way of doing this.
The trouble is that you could have some variable bound to a value of a certain type, edit the source to remove that type, and hit reload. Now you have a variable of a type that no longer exists.
Still, you would think it shouldn't be too hard to detect that, and discard just the variables that don't make sense any more. (The really fun part is presumably when a type still exists but has a different number of fields now, or something like that...)
I'm trying different data structures for implementing Prim's algorithm. So I made a class to abstract what I want to do:
class VertexContainer a where
contains :: a -> Vertex -> Bool
insert :: a -> WeightedEdge -> a
numVertices :: a -> Int
Now I want to use a heap (from Data.Heap) as my vertex container. But I can't for the life of me figure out the syntax. As you can see from the insert declaration, the container can only hold WeightedEdges, which are a data type. So I tried:
instance VertexContainer (Heap MinPolicy WeightedEdge) where
contains _ _ = True
It tells me it's an illegal type synonym. I've tried various other permutations, and none of them seem to work. Can anyone help me?
If you read the entire error message you'll find that it tells you how to be able to use a type synonym in an instance declaration, namely by using the language extension TypeSynonymInstances. E.g., you can pass -XTypeSynonymInstances on the command line.
I got it working by wrapping this into a newtype. Considered ugly. I guess you have to wait for one of the Haskell gurus to answer this.